UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

And the hypothetical white, elite fraternity came solely from Jackie's head, with the potential suggestion of Erdely. (Jackie didn't tell her friends the fraternity involved. Erdely likely helped her pick the fraternity that "felt right".)

And, my hypothetical African-American is just the best "opposite" of this elite, white one. Is that not obvious/clear?

If people are willing to believe the story set in one of these hypothetical fraternities, but not the other, then doesn't that show that all/many of us have biases of our own?

And, I don't think this should be shocking to say. We should all examine our biases. Rolling Stone, Erdely, and rape victim advocacy groups are all too aware of the bias in others. They should think about how their own biases effect their work, and their world view, and their political agenda.

 

You concocted something entirely in your head and are bootstrapping it as evidence of their bias. Something that never happened.

But good debate.

 

Write a book about it.

 

It seems like the problem here is that too many men were all too quick to believe Jackie. Other than here, I think the first place I found people discussing doubts about her story was on a Duke or UNC message board, which I linked to somewhere in this morass. It sure seemed like, on the whole, people believed her. The veracity of the story was not an issue early on. People assumed it was true, and debated the rest of it, like what UVA should or shouldn't have done.

 

Point me to the legions of people unwilling to believe a woman got raped by black frat bros.

 

LOL. This story never happened. It was concocted.

The story as told -- as reported -- IS evidence of their bias.

And, one way to look at how it confirms their bias is to ask yourself: "Self, it this made up story had been set in an African-American fraternity house, would Rolling Stone have treated it the same way? Would they have published such a story, based on such flimsy evidence, or would they have demanded more out of Erdely and Jackie before going to print.

And, if you ask yourself those questions, and come to a different conclusion than I do, then I don't think you are being realistic. I guess I would say that confirms your bias to me.

 

That's just not true. People, myself included, were questioning parts of the story almost immediately. Some of us did that while still showing empathy to someone who still may have been a victim of sexual assault.

 

And as I stated early on, not a word of that story rang true. Not a word. So, that being the case, why was I supposed to believe that she "still may have been a victim of sexual assault"? I have displayed empathy for her as being a victim of mental illness.

 

Does it matter if they are legion?

If they include Dana, Woods, Erdely, and others, isn't that a big deal? Or, even if they were willing to believe it, if they would have handled it differently -- demanded more proof, demanded that Erdely talk to Cindy, and Andy, and Randall, among others -- isn't that an issue?

Look, maybe you don't look at "Frat Bros" as sympathetic figures, who deserve to be treated fairly. But, the truth is, they weren't treated fairly. And, part of the reason why they weren't treated fairly is precisely because they were members of a white, elite fraternity, steeped in Southern couture.

Sorry but I believe everyone deserves to be treated fairly, especially if they're about to be accused of premeditated gang rape in a major, national publication.

Is that really an outrageous position?

Fuck, even if the story turned out to be 100% factually correct, Rolling Stone and Erdely still didn't do their jobs.

 

This whole line of argument is really beneath you. Too bad, it's been a great thread, but now you're turning into asshole mode trying to get everyone to accept as fact something that exists as a hypothetical only in your head.

There is absolutely no truth in what you're saying. There is no falsehood either, because it's just your opinion no matter how wacky it is, but there is no basis whatsoever in it and you want everyone to accept as fact that a black fraternity facing these charges would be treated differently.

It's beneath you, it really is.

 

For me, the only aspect of any of the discussion (here and elsewhere) regarding this story that was a truly affront to basic honesty and ethical Journalism was the dismissal of some of the shaky facts in favor of the need for such stories to spotlight the issue.

Journalism is not a place where we are allowed to make the point through falsehoods. Especially Advocacy Journalism.

Which puts it right among much of the magazine industry, even the legacy mags that have been around for decades.

There are likely elements are Rolling Stone that think a couple of Taylor Swift covers, a glowing review of whatever Springsteen puts out next year, and a couple of righteous anger-laden Taibbi pieces will soothe the skeptical elements of their loyal audience and make all of this blow over.